Tinder Tales: Examining Variations in The Process and Outcomes of Dating - Western CEDAR

Western Washington University
Masthead Logo                                                                                             Western CEDAR
WWU Honors Program Senior Projects                                            WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship

Winter 2019

Tinder Tales: Examining Variations in The Process
and Outcomes of Dating
Gracie Rauen
Western Washington University, gracierauen@gmail.com

Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors
    Part of the Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation
Rauen, Gracie, "Tinder Tales: Examining Variations in The Process and Outcomes of Dating" (2019). WWU Honors Program Senior
Projects. 107.
https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors/107

This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been
accepted for inclusion in WWU Honors Program Senior Projects by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please
contact westerncedar@wwu.edu.

Tinder Tales: Examining Variations in The Process and Outcomes of Dating App Interactions

                                      Gracie Rauen

                           Winter, 2019 Honors Senior Project

                             Western Washington University

Introduction

       Finding a mate has always been a part of human nature. In the early ages of the human

race, finding a mate meant finding someone with whom to reproduce. Later it meant ensuring

stability and status for your family name. While romance eventually became the primary

motivation for relationships, people seek relationships for a wide array of reasons in the modern

world. With the introduction of the internet and smartphones, dating and marrying has a whole

new level of complexity that we are still trying to understand.

       The romantic love we know today was not always the root of marriage and relationships.

Humans used to only pair up to procreate, then came arranged marriages for wealth and stability

and now we live in an age where relationships can happen for many different reasons. In Europe,

in the early nineteenth-century, and many countries before that, arranged marriages became the

tradition to ensure financial success and status of a family. During this time period, families

chose partners for their children based on economic need and desire for status in their

community. The pool of potential partners was often limited to people within your class, culture,

and town. Ackerman (1994) says that happiness in these partnerships was hoped for but was not

part of the deal in being married. In many points in history, feeling a passionate attraction to

another person could be considered a form of madness (Miller, 2012). Still in modern times, the

idea in Western culture that a young person would move out from their parents’ house and then

date, sleep with, and pick their own partners is unimaginable to many cultures (Buunk et al.,

2010). Even in North America, in 1967 76% of women and 35% of men claimed that they would

get married to someone they did not love if they were a logically good partner in the relationship

(Kephart, 1967). Love has only recently become a priority in relationships.

Romantic love came about in Western cultures the mid-nineteenth century and did not

gain high importance in a relationship until much later. Whitty (2013) argues that romantic love

did not begin to flourish as a socially accepted mean of courtship until the mid-nineteenth

century when the formal wedding ceremony emerged, and individuals began picking and

pursuing their spouses. The individuals who got to pick were typically males with the money,

resources, and freedom to do so in a time where women still had a lot more restrictions.

Researchers argued that for a while, this new idea of courtship and marriage was more about a

competition for the ideal women in the community than it was about love (Cate & Lloyd, 1992).

As we moved into the twentieth century, individuals in Western cultures gained more

independence from their families, began going to college with the opposite sex, and building

relationships away from home with those they fell in love with.

       The modern idea of a relationship being between two people who met and fell in love and

got married became the most acceptable type of relationship starting in the 1800’s. This idea still

stands in the majority of Western culture today. However, the idea of what a relationship is has

been expanded greatly in modern times. In the U.S. as we entered the 1960’s, the sexual

revolution emerged, and marriage became less important in many relationships (Whitty, 2013).

Since the 1960’s people have commonly been dating, cohabiting, and marrying for many

different reasons although in the U.S. romantic love is still the most cited reason for marriage.

However, there is now less pressure that a relationship has to lead to marriage; some may just be

for sex, some may end in a friendship.

       In the last three decades, the internet has emerged and gained wide popularity, and has

become a sizable part of dating culture. People have been meeting partners online from the time

there were just text-based chat rooms on basic black and white webpages. In the late 1990’s

websites progressed, and we began to see dating websites that facilitated this online meeting and

allowed users to present images and profiles that could be screened or matched. Outside of

dating sites people were still meeting on social networks like Myspace, Facebook or Twitter

where you could learn a lot about someone and start a conversation without ever seeing them in

person.

          The internet introduced a vast array of potential partners that is much greater than the

social circle people used to have to find a suitable match. You can now talk with people around

world at any time of day and get an immediate response. The lack of face to face interaction on

the internet allows for people to change their communication style. They can be either more open

with personal information or use it to hide parts about them that they cannot hide as easily in

person. The impacts of the internet on human relationships is being studied, but not yet

something we fully understand.

          Previous online dating sites like eHarmony or Match.com cost money, ask many

questions to create a full profile, and take a significant amount of time between creating a profile

and potentially meeting someone. These sites are geared towards individuals looking for long

term relationships and advertise themselves as places to find a long-term match. In 2012, an app

was released that changed the concept of online dating in ways researchers are just beginning to

study. This app, Tinder, along with many other location-based mobile dating applications have

become widely popular in dating culture and there is much we can ask about how that will

change romantic relationships.

          Dating apps are mobile phone applications you can download and use to instantly find

potential partners around you to start talking to. Dating apps have become widely popular in the

last eight years and have changed the way many young people meet potential partners. In 2016,

nearly 22% of young adults ages 18 to 24 reported using mobile dating apps (Smith & Anderson,

2016). These apps have the appeal of being free and quick to set up. Potential partner profiles are

easy to screen, and the apps are proximity based to your location which makes it possible to meet

someone within minutes if desired. Tinder allows users to set up a profile with just a few photos

and short biography (around 500 characters) and connects through a user’s Facebook to validate

they are a real person and not a bot. Users are quickly presented with nearby individuals which

they can “swipe” through, with a right swipe indicating they are interested and a left swipe to

pass on their profile.

        With the aspect of convenience and the modern expansion of what a relationship can be,

research has found that these apps are being used for much more than meeting people to date. In

one study, Timmermans and De Caluwé (2017a), were some of the first researchers to ask the

question, “why do people use these mobile dating apps?” Through their studies they developed

the Tinder Motives Scale which included thirteen motives; seeking social approval, looking for

relationships, seeking sexual experience, improving flirting/social skills, preparing for travelling,

getting over previous relationships, gaining belongingness, responding to peer pressure, meeting

people with the same sexual orientation, passing time, distracting oneself from work or study,

and fulfilling curiosity (Timmermans & De Caluwé, 2017a). Kingwell (2017) however, argues

that these dating apps are simply fillers that are useful when a user is bored to fill a void in their

life, whether it is sex, a relationship, a friendship or something else. Kingwell proposes that it is

possible that in reality people just get addicted to the motion of swiping through profiles and

simulating “choosing” partners when they cannot be doing so in real life. The majority of

existing literature on Tinder focuses on why people use these apps, but not on what they get out

of it and how they interact with others on the app.

Since dating websites have been around longer than these apps, more research exists on

them that will have to be modified and applied to these apps. Knowing that, it is important to

note that there are key differences in the function and use of these apps and dating websites. In

modern society people commonly assume that Tinder is an app for “hook-ups” due to the

stereotypes of the app portrayed through media (Rense, 2018). Dating websites on the other hand

tend to advertise themselves as places to meet a long-term partner. As we are learning from

current research, Tinder users are on the app for more than your traditional relationship, and that

could potentially change a lot about how they interact with the app and their matches.

       It is important to ask if there is a difference in the personalities and motivations of those

who use online resources to find relationships versus those who pursue traditional in-person

dating. Are they shy? Are they awkward? Do they have low self-esteem? To a person foreign to

the concept of online dating, there are many questions about why people choose to go through

the internet to find a partner. A study published by Gatter and Hodkinson in 2016 set out to ask,

are there differences between the users of dating apps, online dating websites, and those who

meet partners offline in terms of motivations, sociability, self-esteem, and sexual

permissiveness? Gatter and Hodkinson suggest that research has widely accepted that online

population increasingly mimics the offline population as phones and computers become more of

our daily lives. As the internet and technology has merged into society and everyday life, it has

in turn become a part of our dating lives as well.

       Gatter and Hodkinson (2016), found that dating apps are typically used by those in their

mid-twenties to mid-thirties, and almost not at all by adults in their mid-forties and over. Online

dating websites were typically used by adults in their mid-twenties to mid-forties. They do note

that the age difference between groups also accounted for their results in differences between

sexual permissiveness scores, where younger people ranked higher in sexual permissiveness. So,

although it appears more Tinder users are sexually permissive, it seems to just be that more

young people are sexually permissive, and more young people use Tinder. They also found that

men on average were more likely than women to use both dating apps and dating websites.

          It is interesting to note that no differences were found in sociability in those who use

online dating platforms and those who do not, and self-esteem did not correlate with online

dating usage either. Gatter and Hodkinson concluded that users of dating apps and online dating

websites do not differ from the general population. This is important in showing that online

platforms have become a normal and regular way of meeting potential partners, and although we

do not fully understand these online relationships, the people looking for them are not clearly

different from people finding offline relationships.

Existing Theories of Romantic Relationship Formation

          There are a few key theories of romantic relationships that can be used to start to

understand online relationship formation. These theories are not yet tailored to online romantic

relationships or dating app interaction but do provide a basis of human relationship formation

that may relate to or cause more questions to arise as to what happens when people start to date

online.

          Social Evolutionary Theory. The first is social evolutionary theory which explains that

humans have evolved to value certain traits in a partner that can aid in support and survival of

future children (Buss, 1989). This theory provided the concept that women look for partners that

can provide for offspring and thus value high socioeconomic status, and men look for women

who are reproductively valuable and thus value physical attraction and youth more. When it

comes to online relationships this appears to lead users to use self-selective presentation where

they can manipulate the likelihood of people choosing their profile by selectively displaying

positive traits or information on their profile (Wotipka & High, 2016). This impression

construction has to maintain enough aspects of reality that ensure how the person presents

themselves online will be close enough to the in-person version of themselves so that a partner

does not feel deceived (Toma & Hancock, 2010).

        Social Penetration Theory. The next theory is social penetration theory, which argues

that people disclose deeper personal information as relationships progress and gradually more

trust evolves as a couple mutually shares personal information (Altman & Taylor, 1973). There

is not a lot of information on how communication plays out in online relationships, but we can

use this concept to study patterns of online disclosure. Joinson (2001) found that when

individuals are on online platforms, they are more likely to self-disclose a lot more deep and

personal information a lot quicker than they would in person. This could apply to dating app

conversations as well since there is not as much of a fear of having to disclose something in

person which is a lot riskier than an online platform you can walk away from or delete at any

time.

        This pattern of quicker disclosure may not always be a positive. Suler (2004) explains a

phenomenon called the disinhibition effect where individuals both are more likely to open up in

ways they would not in person, but also are more likely to act in ways they normally would not.

This can lead to people feeling empowered, in control, and confident, but can also occasionally

lead to people becoming harsher critics, acting angrier, and saying hurtful things that they would

not with the face to face feedback and social expectations of in-person interactions.

        Social Exchange Theory. Social exchange theory says that people look at relationships

in regard to rewards and costs, in a way where people try to maximize rewards and minimize

costs (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). A key part of this theory is that it is important to consider one’s

previous expectations from prior relationships and observations of other’s relationships to predict

how satisfied one will actually be. Therefore, to be satisfied in a relationship, the outcomes must

match or exceed a person’s expectations. Whitty (2008) argues that exchange theory could

explain why people often go into online dating profiles with a “shopping list” type mindset to

find people who fulfill as many positive qualities as possible with hopes that their relationship

will be more rewarding in the end. Another key part of this theory is that the outcomes in the

current relationship must also outweigh the possible outcomes of alternatives that are available to

us. With an app like Tinder, there are hundreds of available options in the palm of your hand, so

it is hard to not constantly wonder and compare what you have, to what you could have.

       Matching and Reciprocity. Matching presents the idea that we are likely to end up in a

relationship with someone who is equally attractive to us (Hitsch, Hortacsu, & Ariely, 2010).

Initial attraction is key in forming a relationship and we tend to pair off in the long run on levels

of equal attraction unless one partner presents an outweighing factor like a lot of money that can

throw off the balance (Whitty, 2008). Reciprocity is the concept that we like those who like us

back. The idea is proposed that in person, the likelihood we will approach and try to start a

relationship with someone comes down to a potential partner’s desirability being a product of

their physical attractiveness times the probability of them liking you back (Shanteau & Nagy,

1979). Timmermans and DeCaluwé (2017b), argue that Tinder creates a sort of emotionally safe

place for individuals who fear being judged or evaluated negatively. This makes sense since a

user is not risking much by uploading a profile. A user will never know if someone does not

swipe on their profile and they are only notified when someone they have swiped right on, also

swipes right on them so it takes away a layer of the fear of rejection. Since these apps require

mutual swiping, the initial idea of “liking each other back” is kind of taken care of. However, it

is unclear how important physical matching is on these apps since people use them for many

reasons, not just to find a long-term mate.

Present Study

       With so little current research on dating app usage itself, we have to use previous theories

to try and understand these online interactions the best we can. These dating apps give you such

minimal information, that what you take away from a profile may be similar to having a single

first impression of a person in the real world. People are swiping on these apps for a variety of

reasons, with different intentions and expectations, and are deciding to swipe based on such

minimal knowledge of a person. Unlike dating websites, people use these apps for much more

than finding a relationship and their interactions may vary immensely depending on many

different factors. Thus, the patterns of communication are truly key to beginning to understand

how people develop different types of relationships on these apps, and how it differs from

patterns of communication in meeting people in everyday life. This study sets out to explore the

journey of a dating app user from motivation to outcome of a dating app interaction and discover

which patterns of communication can lead to which outcomes.

                                              Method

Participants

       One hundred and sixty-eight undergraduate psychology students at Western Washington

University (WWU) participated in this study in exchange for course credit. They were recruited

through Sona, the online subject pool used by the Department of Psychology at WWU. The

participants sampled represented introductory psychology students in age (M= 19.7 years). They

were primarily female (66.7%), Caucasian (74.4%), and identified as straight or heterosexual

(70%). Of the sample, 25% used dating apps weekly and 21.4% used dating apps daily.

Procedure

       Participants completed the experiment individually, on their own time online through

Qualtrics surveying software and were granted credit upon completion of the survey. This was an

exploratory study, and thus participants first answered some demographic questions, indicated

how often they used dating apps, and which dating apps they used most. Participants then

recalled a memorable experience from these dating apps and wrote a paragraph describing the

experience from start to finish. Participants then completed the Tinder Motives Scale (TMS;

Timmermans & De Caluwé, 2017a) to describe their motivations for using the app at the time of

that memorable interaction. Participants were then asked to complete a 33-item measure ranking

statements that described the characteristics of types of communication used, what they talked

about, and their feelings towards the other person. If the participants met online, they were asked

to briefly write about their first in-person meeting, and then asked to complete a similar measure,

with 25 items that described the characteristics of their in-person communication, emotions, and

interactions. Finally, participants were asked to label the outcome of their interaction in one of

five categories. They were also asked a few questions regarding satisfaction and how the

interaction lined up with their expectations.

Measures

       The Tinder Motive Scale (TMS; Timmermans & De Caluwé, 2017a) is a thirteen-item

scale that has emerged from research on the most common reasons why people use dating apps

such as Tinder. These thirteen items are a variety of reasons that researchers have observed such

as, social approval, curiosity, socializing, seeking relationship, and traveling. Participants were

asked to select which items on the TMS applied to their reasons for using the app at the time of

the memorable experience they described. Scores were reduced from the TMS using cluster

analysis. From the original thirteen items, four clusters of motivation emerged:

curiosity/boredom, seeking sex, seeking friendship and seeking relationship. These motivations

often occurred simultaneously as participants could choose more than one motivation.

       Because there was no current applicable scale, a 33-item measure of online

communication was developed for the present study. Participants responded on a Likert scale

from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true) in regard to their online communication during this

memorable interaction. These statements covered a broad variety of feelings, actions, and

attitudes towards the person they were communicating with and the online interaction as a

whole. Since this was an exploratory study, we ended up with a lot of data and information about

each participant regarding their communication. Principle access factoring with an oblimin

rotation was used to narrow down the online, and in-person communication scales into smaller

factor subgroups. Items that cross loaded on more than one factor were removed from our

analyses moving forward.

       With factor analysis, the measure of online communication ended up dropping from

thirty-three to twenty-one items in total. This included ten items regarding romantic interest (i.e.

We often had deep conversations, I felt excited when I got a message from this person α = .94),

two items regarding sexual communication (i.e. We often exchanged sexually explicit photos,

We often exchanged verbal sexts α = .80), three items regarding negative emotions (i.e. I often

felt upset or angry with this person, I often felt scared of hesitant when talking to this person α =

.62), two items regarding drug and alcohol usage (i.e. I was often under the influence of drugs or

alcohol when I communicated with this person, This person was often under the influence of

drugs or alcohol when they communicated with me α = .82), two items regarding seeking other

options (i.e. I was often looking for other options during the time I was communicating with this

person, I was often talking to multiple people while communicating with this person α = .74),

and two items regarding clear intentions (i.e. This person’s intentions were clear to me while we

were communicating, this person was very clear about my intentions while we were

communicating α = .79).

       If their interaction included meeting the person face to face, they were then asked to rank

twenty-five statements about online communication on the same scale, covering the same types

of topics. With factor analysis, the measure of in-person communication ended up dropping from

twenty-five to sixteen items in total. This included five items regarding romantic interest (i.e. I

felt a lot of romantic chemistry when hanging out with this person, We talked a lot about shared

interests when we hung out α = .88), two items regarding clear intentions (i.e. I was very aware

of this person’s intentions while we were hanging out, My partner was very aware of my

intentions while we were hanging out α = .81), four items regarding seeking other options (i.e. I

dated or interacted with other partners during the time I was meeting up with this person, I think

my partner was looking for other options during the time we were meeting up α = .87), two items

regarding drug and alcohol usage (i.e. I was often under the influence of drugs or alcohol when

hanging out with this person, We often did drugs or drank while hanging out together α = .88),

and three items of location and sex that factored together and showed that people hanging out at

home are having sex more than those typically going out in public (i.e. Most of our time together

was spent at one of our houses, We had sex most of the times we met in person α = .62).

Results

       When asked about motivations, it was found that most of our users were on the app

because they were curious (75.0%) or bored (70.8%). However, 50.6% were looking for a

relationship, 29.8% for a friendship and 29.2% for sex. This shows that people use these apps for

a wide variety of reasons and often do not have a clear driving goal or motivation when

downloading the app. In general, a plurality of our subjects categorized their outcome as a dead

end (33.3%). This could explain why many users stated being on the app daily or weekly as they

are not having more long-term experiences. However, 21.4% categorized their outcome as a

friendship, 20.2 % as casual dating, 18.5% as a relationship, and 6.5% as a hookup. It is

important to clarify the low number for a hookup does not mean more people did not get sex out

of their interaction, it could have led to what they would categorize as a relationship, casual

dating, or friendship as well. It is important to note that participants were reporting the outcomes

for a specific memorable event. That means that these outcomes are not indicative of the typical

dating app experience, but rather the memorable ones.

       With no direct hypothesis, we wanted to use the data at hand to explore patterns that

might exist in dating app interactions from motivation to outcome and everything in between. In

order to do this, we ran a correlational path analysis between each stage of the interaction. We

used the four motivation types to predict each of the six online communication variables. For

pairs that met in person, we used the online communication variables to predict each of the five

in-person communication variables. We used the in-person communication variables to predict

the five outcome variables. We then searched for patterns of sizable and statistically significant

correlations. Although most people were motivated by curiosity and boredom, those two

motivations alone did not lead to any clear correlational pathways of communication or

outcomes. Rather, curiosity and boredom motivations were present in most of the interactions.

We identified two major correlational pathways that did show clear patterns; that of those

seeking friendships and relationships, and a path for those seeking sex. Interestingly, those

looking for friendships or relationships had very similar pathways of communication.

       Figure one displays the correlational path analysis for those who stated seeking a

friendship or seeking a relationship as one of their motivations. Those using the app to find a

friendship or relationship were more likely to engage in and experience romantic connection type

communication online (things like discussing shared interests, feeling strong chemistry,

disclosing personal information), this in turn positively correlated with relationship type

interactions and clear intentions in person. This online romantic connection negatively correlated

with seeing multiple people in person, which meant that often once there was an online

connection, people tried dating that one person and put other options on hold. For those who

formed a romantic connection online but did not meet in person, the interaction was still likely to

be categorized as a friendship without the need to meet first. Once the in-person meeting took

place for those who took that route, there were correlations from that in-person relationship type

interaction to casual dating and relationships. We can also see that those with clear intentions

less often got a dead-end situation with no real outcome. Finally, we can see that those who acted

more romantically in person were less likely to end in a dead end or being just friends.

       Figure two displays the correlational path analysis for those who said that sex was one of

their motivations in using dating apps. The motivation of sex lead to three categories within

online communication. These users tended to be using drugs or alcohol while on the app, be clear

about their intentions, and engage in more sexual communication. It appears that these

participants, if they met in person, kept clear intentions and continued using drugs or alcohol in

the in-person interaction. It also appears that these people were often looking for multiple

options or seeking other options while interacting with this partner, and they were more likely to

act in sexual ways when they met up. If their intentions were clear in person, they were less

likely to categorize the outcome as a dead end, which means they more often got something out

of the interaction. Those using drugs and alcohol in person were more likely to end in a hookup,

and those seeing multiple people were less likely to find a relationship.

Figure 1. The Friendship/Relationship Motivation Path that emerged from a correlational path
analysis examining patterns of communication between motivation and outcome of a dating app
interaction.

Figure 2. The Sexual Motivation Path that emerged from a correlational path analysis examining
patterns of communication between motivation and outcome of a dating app interaction.

Discussion

       Although new theories may need to be created to describe online relationships, and the

existing theories of romantic relationships do not completely apply to these dating app

interactions, there are some applicable parts of existing theory that can be applied to what we

found. In regard to Social Penetration Theory, those who wanted relationships and friendships

did tend to engage in more intimate self-disclosure, which fits the theory’s idea that people open

up more as they become more intimate and vice versa (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Social

Exchange Theory is clearly applicable when it comes to dating apps in the means that there are

endless alternatives to compare one’s relationship to (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Most of our

subjects stated that they ended with a dead-end outcome and the interaction did not go anywhere.

This could relate to exchange theory in that there are endless alternatives, so every interaction is

being compared to other dating app interactions, and when one thing goes wrong it is easy to

give up and move on to a new interaction, thus stability in these relationships could be

weakened. It is also really hard to tell what one will get out of an interaction through a simple

profile and thus, this theory may not apply until more of a relationship emerges between users.

       Our study used younger college students as subjects and thus, Social Evolutionary Theory

may not be as applicable (Buss, 1989). Only half of our users were looking for a relationship,

and with that many 19-year-olds may not be looking for their life-long partner, and the long-term

implications of mating may not matter as much to this demographic. The theories of Matching

and Reciprocity also may not be as relevant with our demographic as matching is observed in

long-term partners, and many of our subjects may not be looking for something long-term

(Hitsch et al., 2010). However, the idea of wanting to be liked back and accepted by a potential

mate is relevant and overcome by dating apps initially in the required matching function where

both people have to express interest in each other with a “swipe” before they can start talking.

       As our results showed, most of our participants did not get anything out of their

memorable interaction. This may have to do with the fact that so many people use these apps

because they are curious and bored and aren’t really looking for an interaction to go anywhere.

Dating apps are a good place for people to find others to talk to, and many of our users never had

met anyone in person from these apps. Although they are called “dating” apps, these findings

may imply that dating is not a major reason people download and use them. They seem to be

above all, a place to cure one’s boredom and fulfill their curiosity. And more often than some

may expect, people are connecting and forming friendships through their interactions on these

apps. Relationships, casual dating, and hookups only made up 45% of our user’s outcomes, so it

appears there is a lot more to these apps and the interactions had on them than one might expect.

Limitations

       This study was subject to a few limitations. First and foremost, this was an exploratory

study due to the lack of existing research on the full dating app experience. This means we did

not go into this research with a hypothesis, and some patterns may have been looked over or

missed. There is a lot of data at hand that could tell us more than what we chose to extract, but it

was important to not mine the data beyond what was necessary for an exploratory overview.

       Each participant was only asked to report a memorable experience. This was done to get

the most recall of information from one single experience, however it does mean this information

may not be representative of the average dating app experience. It is possible that these patterns

are more applicable to extreme circumstances, but with many interactions happening for each

user, the memorable ones may be what are important to study.

We also asked for retrospective reporting of the interaction. Long-term memory is known

to be malleable and it is likely that what subjects reported is not the exact reality of what

happened in the interaction (Talamini & Gorree, 2012). The subject could have an altered view

on the interaction based on emotional reaction to the outcome, other similar experiences they

have had since that interaction, and the alteration that happens each time they access that

interaction from their long-term memory.

        Finally, this is all correlational data, and that means that our pathways cannot show any

clear causation within certain patterns of communication and the outcomes user’s experienced.

These can show patterns of what often happens, but not what always happens, and each

experience will be different regardless of motivation or communication.

Future Research

        Many questions have emerged from these findings, the first one being in regard to the

demographic that was surveyed. How might these results be different in an older population?

The motivations of the users may elicit different patterns of communication, specifically in that

older users may be thinking more long term and thus the original theories of romantic

relationships may become more important in their interactions. Another question might be about

the messages that users portray in their profile and how those signals impact their interactions.

User’s may be sending messages they are not intending that could be hurting or helping without

their realizations. There is a lot of research on self-presentation in face to face interactions, but

there is still a lot more to be discovered about impression management online, and especially on

dating apps where pictures and information are minimal (Wotipka & Andrew, 2016).

        A crucial point that stood out in our data was the correlation between drug and alcohol

usage and hookups that was found on our Sexual Motivation Pathway. Intoxication and sex are

not a good mix, especially when often these people do not know each other well, and there can

be a lot of gray area. Researchers are beginning to look into one of the dark sides of dating apps,

which happens to be people meeting up with complete strangers often in private places. Gillett

(2018) argues that this type of sexual abuse is becoming normalized as often the victim feels at

fault for agreeing to meet with a stranger, or ashamed of the taboo nature of admitting you met

the person on a dating app. Sexual violence is a large problem in our society, and unfortunately

dating apps provide another platform for predators to easily find and manipulate victims. These

implications could be looked into further along with more public information about safety on

these apps.

       There are also some questions that arise about the effects these dating apps are having on

offline relationships. First of all, how does the satisfaction and success of these relationships that

form online compare to those which start offline? The idea that there are so many alternatives

could be impacting people’s willingness to stick through hard times in relationships. It is also

much easier to find other options and cheat on a partner with these apps so easily accessible with

no immediate costs. It is possible that getting to talk to people online ahead of time and get to

know them before jumping into a relationship could also enhance relationship satisfaction. We

can also ask, is the increase of dating app usage having an impact on those trying to find offline

relationships? Is it now more awkward to initiate an offline relationship when people are so used

to finding relationships online? If we have not gotten there yet, it could be a direction we are

heading. There is a lot to be researched moving forward.

Conclusion

       Dating apps are still growing and evolving in our lives, and as society becomes more

reliant on technology, it will not be surprising if people become more reliant on them for finding

love of all sorts. They have grown immensely in the seven years they have existed, and the

growth does not seem to be slowing down. Relationship psychologists will need to take these

apps into account in further research and truly start to understand how these apps are affecting

individuals and relationships. These apps could be a serious change in how we form romantic

relationships and may implicate serious changes are needed in the theories we think we know

about relationship formation in this day and age.

References

Ackerman, D. (1994). A natural history of love. New York: Random House.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal

       relationships. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested

       in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.

Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2010). Cultural variation in parental influence on

       mate choice. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 23-40.

Cate. R., & Lloyd, S. (1992). Courtship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gillett, R (2018). Intimate intrusions online: Studying the normalization of abuse in dating apps.

       Women’s Studies International Forum, 69, 212-219. DOI:

       https://doi.org/10/1016/j.wsif.2018.04.005

Gatter, K., & Hodkinson, K. (2016). On the differences between Tinder versus online

       dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study. Cogent Psychology

       3(1), 1162414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1162414

Hitsch, G. J., Hortacsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in

       online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 363-427.

Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of

       self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31,

       177–192.

Kephart, W. (1967). Some correlates of romantic love. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29,

       470-479.

Kingwell, M. (2017). Bored, addicted, or both: How we use social media now. Social

Media and Your Brain: Web based communication is changing how we think and express

       ourselves (15-35). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Miller, R. S. (2012). Intimate relationships. New York, N.Y: McGraw-Hill.

Rense, S. (2018). A few things to know about sex and dating apps before jumping in bed with a

       stranger. Esquire Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/

       sex/a47241/best-sex-apps/

Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. F. (1979). Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal of

       Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 522-533.

Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2016, February 29). 5 facts about online dating. Pew Research

       Center: Fact Tank. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2016/02/29/5-

       facts-about-online-dating/

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.

Talamini, L. M., & Gorree, E. (2012). Aging memories: Differential decay of episodic

       memory components. Learning & Memory, 19(6), 239–246. DOI:10.1101/lm.024281.111

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Timmermans, E., & De Caluwé, E. (2017a). Development and validation of the Tinder

       Motives Scale (TMS). Computers in Human Behavior 70, 341-350. DOI:

       http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.028

Timmermans, E., & De Caluwé, E. (2017b). To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question:

       An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Personality and

       Individual Differences, 110, 74-79. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.026

Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in

online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335-331.

       DOI: 10.1177/0093650209356437

Whitty, M. T. (2013). Online romantic relationships. The Social Net: Understanding out

       online social behavior. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199639540.003.0004

Whitty, M.T. (2008). Revealing the “real” me, searching for the “actual” you: Presentations of

       self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707–1723.

Wotipka, C. D. & Andrew, C. H. (2016). An idealized self or the real me? Predicting attraction

       to online dating profiles using selective self-presentation and warranting. Communication

       Monographs, 83(3), 281-302. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2016.1198041